Rollins CollegeRollins Scholarship Online

Honors Program Theses

Spring 2018

“It’s Not Easy Being Green”: Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behaviors Among College StudentsMorgan Lanermlaner@rollins.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/honors

Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the Environmental StudiesCommons

This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors ProgramTheses by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact rwalton@rollins.edu.

Recommended CitationLaner, Morgan, "“It’s Not Easy Being Green”: Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behaviors Among College Students" (2018). HonorsProgram Theses. 59.https://scholarship.rollins.edu/honors/59

“IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN”: PREDICTORS OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL

BEHAVIORS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Morgan Laner

A Senior Honors Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

Requirements of the Honors Degree Program

May 2018

Faculty Sponsor: Amy Armenia

Rollins College

Winter Park, Florida

1

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 7

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 25

Institutional Context: Sustainability at Rollins ............................................................................. 33

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 41

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 52

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 58

References ..................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................... 66

2

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Univariate Results of Pro-Environmental Behaviors (n=16) .......................................... 42

Table 2. Univariate Results of Intentions (n=3) ........................................................................... 44

Table 3. Univariate Results of Intentions, Subjective Norms, Attitudes, and PBC (n=28) .......... 44

Table 4. Correlations among all variables .................................................................................... 48

Table 5. Multiple Regression for Intention to Perform Pro-Environmental Behaviors ................ 49

Table 6. T-Test for Gender on All Variables, Equal Variances Assumed .................................... 51

Figure 1. Theory of reasoned action ............................................................................................. 10

Figure 2. The theory of planned behavior ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 3. 2017 Race/Ethnicity for the Rollins College of Liberal Arts ........................................ 29

Figure 4. Age Distribution of CLA Students, Fall 2017 ............................................................... 29

Figure 5. Age and Gender Breakdown of Respondents ................................................................ 41

Figure 6. Regression Results Applied to the Theory of Planned Behavior .................................. 50

3

Abstract

This study looks at the different predictors of the pro-environmental behaviors of undergraduate

college students at a small, urban, private liberal arts college in Florida. A total of 437 students

reported their environmental attitudes, subjective norms, intentions, perceived behavioral

control, and pro-environmental behaviors. Results shows that the sample population replicates

the relationships of the theory of planned behavior framework. Attitudes were the strongest

predictors of intentions, which in turn had a positive, moderately strong relationship with pro-

environmental behavior. Men were found to have higher means for intentions and attitudes than

women. Understanding the perceptions and behaviors of students can help develop proper

recommendations for how the school can improve its sustainability programming.

Keywords: pro-environmental behavior, attitudes, students, sustainability

4

Introduction

Over the past half century, the growth of the environmental movement has become evident as the

number and intensity of environmental issues increase. Research shows clear evidence of

systemic, global issues such as global warming, deforestation, and overconsumption as well as

localized problems of hazardous waste, air pollution, and invasive species. Although there has

historically been a rise in the number of policies and organizations created to protect the health

of the natural environment, there is always potential for ideals and practices to be reversed.

Recent agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals show global commitment to environmental improvement even though some

countries and localities do not have the same level of dedication. Additionally, there is a known

effect of human behavior and life on the environment, evident in our constant construction of

subdivisions and use of natural resources for our consumption. To help understand the varying

priorities and pledges of different populations, academics and scientists alike have found the

importance of studying how individuals interact their environment, whether for the benefit of

businesses, governments, or individual communities.

Many higher education institutions are choosing to be at the forefront of addressing

environmental change, recognizing their role in teaching sustainability. Some have implemented

full-fledged sustainability plans whereas others experience financial, administrative, or logistical

obstacles even with their good intentions (Meyer 2016). Regardless of the levels of success, the

college setting provides insight into an important segment of the population. Colleges and

universities are often ground zero for a variety of social movements as students experiment with

5

their values and associations, and set the stage for behavior throughout their lifetime. As future

leaders, their beliefs and intentions towards the environment and sustainability are important to

take into account as the campus and greater community develops accurate programming,

promotional materials, and strategic plans (Ermolaeva 2010; Meyer 2016). In this line of

argument, it is important to look at the levels of and relationship between pro-environmental

behaviors and attitudes of college students.

Rollins College lies at a crossroads with regards to its environmental standing. While there are

numerous programs being implemented for the campus community, including recycling, a free

bike share program, and a small urban farm, the campus lacks a comprehensive commitment to

environmental sustainability in its strategic planning. This is evident in the role and influence of

their primary sustainability organizations, which does not include a centralized office of

sustainability with a formal director. However, as the campus moves forward in expanding their

programs and reaches, it becomes evident that research needs to be done to understand where the

student body stands in terms of environmental commitment and whether the college programs

mesh with this commitment. Understanding their use of current programming and overall

environmental beliefs can help shape the future of the relationship between Rollins College and

the natural environment. The student population at Rollins comes from diverse backgrounds and

interests, and the role of the liberal arts education promoted by the school also influences the

variety of environmental attitudes and behaviors.

In this study, I look at the roles of environmental attitudes, subjective norms, intentions, and

perceived behavioral control on pro-environmental behavior for undergraduates at Rollins

6

College. I first conducted background research on a range of individual, contextual, and

demographic factors related to engaging in pro-environmental behavior, then developed and

distributed a survey instrument that applies these variables to different specific and general

behaviors. After a two-week field period, I analyzed a total of 437 responses with correlations

and multiple regression tests. The results indicate that the sample population was consistent with

the theory of planned behavior framework, with attitudes as the strongest predictors of intentions

and a positive, moderately strong relationship between intentions and behaviors. Men showed

higher means than women for intentions and attitudes and there were no significant trends

between age groups and any of the variables. These results can be used to determine what kind of

environmental programming will be most accepted and utilized by the college and help improve

the overall footprint of Rollins.

7

Literature Review

In modern societies it has become clear the immense impact that humans have on the natural

environment. Every day, individuals interact with their environment, whether through physically

going outside or buying products that utilize natural resources. And while many of these

behaviors are not intentionally planned, one can act to mitigate the negative impacts of humans

on the environment. These actions can include turning off lights when exiting a room or

carpooling to an event with friends. For many, these pro-environmental behaviors define their

daily activities. Pro-environmental behaviors are defined as actions, taken in both the public and

private spheres, which benefit at least one component of environmental wellbeing. This can

include areas ranging from waste and recycling to energy conservation to ecosystem renewal and

more. This field of study is growing, as researchers are taking the time to understand what

predicts these behaviors, both general and specific, yet there is still more to learn.

In this chapter, I first outline the theoretical framework utilized in the study. Then I discuss the

findings of prior research on pro-environmental behaviors. The second section begins by going

into details about variables at the individual level that predict pro-environmental behavior. Next

I discuss contextual factors, which are influenced more heavily by relationships with other

individuals, groups, and communities. Finally, I select three common demographic

characteristics that are studied as predictors of pro-environmental behavior. This review of

literature, while extensive, does not cover all possible variables and influences on behavior but

rather focuses on those related to my framework or my sample population as discussed further

below.

8

Theoretical Framework

There are multiple frameworks and theories that are used in the literature to help understand why

individuals behave in certain ways. Common ones include the transtheoretical model, which

argues individuals move through different stages of change, the value-norm-belief framework,

which utilizes five variables that influence the type of action taken, and the theory of planned

behavior. While all of these frameworks can be used to address pro-environmental behavior, I

have chosen to utilize the theory of planned behavior (TPB) for my study because it has the most

consistent and reliable correlations for similar studies, as discussed throughout this chapter. It

also combines contextual and individual level variables, both of which are important in the field

of sociology.

The TPB is commonly used to understand the relationships between different predictors of

environmental behaviors. Essentially, the framework argues that behaviors can be predicted by

four other behaviors. Behaviors are directly predicted by someone’s intentions, then their

intentions are predicted by a combination of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived

behavioral control. If applied to the behavior of recycling, for example, the action itself would be

most directly preceded by the person’s willingness and plans to recycle, or their intentions. In

turn, their willingness is determined by their beliefs towards the concept of recycling (attitudes),

influences of their family and friends (subjective norms), and how easy or difficult it is to recycle

where they are (perceived behavioral control). Many researchers choose to use this framework

because it allows for the intended audience to learn what other ways they can influence behavior

rather than just changing the actions themselves, which can be hard.

9

This theory has its origins in its predecessor, the theory of reasoned action (TRA). As shown in

Figure 1, the TRA focuses on volitional behaviors, which means the individual is actively

committing to the action (Azjen 1985; Tonglet et al. 2004). Behaviors are said to be directly

predicted by intention to perform; intention itself is predicted by personal attitude towards the

behavior and subjective norm (Azjen 1985; Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999a;

Tonglet et al. 2004). Sheldon (2016) exemplify the application of this model in their study on the

factors that influence students’ and professors’ behavior of adding each other as friends on

Facebook. In line with the TRA, she discovers that intentions are the biggest influencer for both

parties to add the other as a friend. Not all studies result in one simple answer as the most

significant predictor of behavior; variables are all weighted differently depending on the

behavior and in some cases, questions can be answered by looking only at one variable. In fact,

Sheldon (2016) also notes that personal attitude towards the student was the biggest influencer

for professors and subjective norm for students to add the other as a friend, which shows how

there can be differences for different types of subjects within the sample. While the TRA does

have a high level of predictive accuracy in a wide variety of fields, it does have its limitations.

Azjen (1985) discusses drawbacks including how the theory does not apply to behaviors not fully

under volitional control and does not address differences between reported and actual behaviors.

Additionally, the TRA does not address internal factors of willpower, emotions, and skills as

well as external factors such as dependence on others or time.

10

Figure 1. Theory of reasoned action

Source: Factors Affecting Student’s Intention to Choose IT Program (Sathapornvajana and Watanapa 2012)

The TPB moves beyond these constraints to take into account nonvolitional and specific

behaviors. It becomes most useful as control lessens and contextual factors are present (Azjen

1985; Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999a). Kaiser and Gutscher (2003) challenge this

notion in their study of the variance in behaviors among the Swiss, such as recycling and driving

at conservative speeds on their living environment. However, they find that residential context

does not impact the intention-behavior relationship as they expected, which bolsters the validity

of the TPB in situations with less control (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003). Just like the TRA, the

TPB (as shown in Figure 2) states intention as a direct predictor of behavior, with attitudes and

subjective norms predicting intention (Azjen 1985; Conner and Armitage 1998; Whitmarsh and

O’Neill 2010). However, it extends the TRA by including perceived behavior control as a

predictor of both intention and behavior (Azjen 1985; Kaiser et al. 1999b). This inclusion can

create more accuracy in understanding behavioral variables, which is why some researchers

choose the TPB over the TRA. For example, Kaiser and Gutscher (2003) question the influence

of perceived behavioral control on behavior. In their study of the ecological behavior of rural,

suburban and urban Swiss communities, they end up discovering that while perceived behavioral

11

control does not have a significant influence on behavior directly, it does account for nearly half

of the variance of intentions, therefore justifying the addition of this variable into the theory

(Kaiser and Gutscher 2003).

Figure 2. The theory of planned behavior

Source: Theory of Planned Behavior (Orzanna 2015)

Studies that use the TPB introduce potential predecessors of intentions, attitudes, and subjective

norms. These include a variety of factors such as underlying beliefs, behavioral expectations, and

self-identity among others (Azjen 1985; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). Azjen (1985) argues that

this allows for a more complete understanding of behaviors. The scope of this theory is not

restricted to any particular field, although much of the research on environmental behavior

utilizes the TPB. In this study, I will discuss how researchers have found that the TPB presents

strong predictive validity in studies about pro-environmental behaviors, for more general

behaviors (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999a; Levine and Strube 2012; Whitmarsh

and O’Neill 2010) to recycling (Aguilar-Luzon et al. 2012; Lakhan 2017; Tonglet et al. 2004) to

12

conservation behaviors (Frick et al. 2004; Kaiser et al. 2005). The following literature review

will look at predictors used in TPB as well as projected extensions of the theory and their

application to the field of pro-environmental behavior.

Individual Variables

Individual-level variables include predictors such as intention, knowledge, self-identification,

values, attitudes, and past behavior. Sometimes these behaviors are referred to psychologically in

the sense that they can be evident of individualistic and unique characteristics. However, they are

also sociologically relevant in that they are a representation of larger, institutional constraints

such as socialization or education systems that filter down to the individual level. In this way,

they influence both purposeful and non-volitional individual behavior.

Intention

Intention is an indication of an individual’s readiness or preparedness to perform an action. In

many studies, an individual’s intention is the direct predictor of pro-environmental behavior and

accounts for the majority of all variance (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999a; Kaiser

et al. 2005; Levine and Strube 2012; Morren and Grinstein 2016; Swaim et al. 2014). These

relationships apply to a variety of behaviors. A study by Kaiser et al. (1999b) looking at

members of two different Swiss transportation associations shows that admission of intention to

perform behaviors is better at predicting general ecological and prosocial behaviors rather than

specific automobile-oriented behaviors because they are less susceptible to contextual

13

constraints. Other studies show intention as a predictor of specific behaviors (Aguilar-Luzon et

al. 2012; Levine and Strube 2012; Taylor and Todd 1995). In a study of 90 undergraduate

students, Levine and Strube (2012) use a combination of methods to determine the likelihood of

performing different everyday behaviors such as turning off the lights when exiting a room. They

discovered statistical significance between intention to perform these behaviors and engagement

in the behaviors themselves as measured as a single construct. Additionally, Morren and

Grinstein (2016) conduct a meta-analysis on 81 previous studies on environmental behaviors,

categorizing the study as looking either at food, conservation, general, or other specific

behaviors. They find that intention is a better predictor of all categories of pro-environmental

behaviors in individualistic and developed countries rather than developing or collectivist

countries (Morren and Grinstein 2016). This supports the affluence hypothesis, which argues that

economic capabilities and technological infrastructure create more ease and feasibility in

engaging in pro-environmental behavior such as purchasing ‘green’ products or driving electric

cars.

Knowledge

Individual knowledge of different environmental issues and infrastructure is often a component

of many studies that look at pro-environmental behavior. Knowledge has a relationship to both

behavior and intentions (Azjen 1985). Kaiser et al. (1999a; 1999b) discover knowledge to

explain variance in intentions for studies with California college students as well as Swiss adults

whereas Levine and Strube (2012) found knowledge of environmental issues to have an

independent effect on everyday environmental behaviors like recycling but not on intention to do

14

these behaviors. Few conclusive statements have been made about the role of knowledge overall.

Regardless, knowledge can be broken down into multiple sectors. Sometimes it is divided into

normative and factual knowledge (Kaiser et al. 1999a). Normative knowledge is value-based,

such as parents teaching their children to recycle because it is what good people do, whereas

factual knowledge relies on concrete proofs like understanding the concentration of greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere and their causation of climate change. Most of the time, researchers

imply factual knowledge in their definitions. Frick et al. (2004) argues that there are multiple

types of interconnected knowledge that lead to influence behavior. For example, systemic

knowledge influences action-related and effectiveness knowledge, which in turn influences

conservation behavior (Frick et al. 2004). Mobley et al. (2010) uses exposure to environmental

literature as a proxy for knowledge when reanalyzing data from a National Geographic

magazine survey. They find that more exposure increases levels of environmental responsible

consumer behaviors such as purchasing locally made materials (Mobley et al. 2010). The

knowledge of local waste systems, specifically recycling, and its effect on behavior has been

studied extensively (Barr 2003; Lakhan 2017; Tonglet et al. 2004). After surveying 981

households in an English city, Barr (2003) concluded that knowing the local and national policy

development increased the likelihood of recycling. Higher rates of participation and individual

engagement in recycling behaviors also increases with knowledge of how, where, and why to

recycle (Lakhan 2017; Tonglet et al. 2004).

15

Self-Identification and Personality Traits

Both self-identification and personality traits are variables that address how we define ourselves.

The former is seen to stem from sociological reasoning, meaning how we identify ourselves as

people is in part developed based on our interactions with people and the society around us. The

latter is based on psychological reasoning, which indicates that our personality is drawn from

distinct character. Research on how these variables help to predict pro-environmental behavior is

limited. Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) studied the expansion of the TPB of residents in two

counties of the United Kingdom to include self-identification. They found that self-identity as an

environmentally conscious consumer or low-carbon impact lifestyle proved to be a strong

predictor of pro-environmental behavior independent from the theory (Whitmarsh and O’Neill

2010). Similarly, Sparks and Shepard (1992) discovered self-identity as a green consumer to

have an independent and positive effect on behaviors related to eating organic vegetables when

measured against other variables such as intention and subjective norms.

When looking at common personality traits, certain personality characteristics are shown to have

higher correlations with pro-environmental behavior. Markowitz et al. (2012) surveyed a

heterogeneous sample of homeowners and students in the Eugene-Springfield community to

conduct two studies on the relationship between broad personality traits and pro-environmental

action. They discovered a consistent positive relationship between openness to experiences and

appreciation of beauty with environmental behaviors (Markowitz et al. 2012). In another study of

undergraduate students in Japan, Iwata (2004) found that pro-environmental behaviors were most

significantly related to traits such as emotional sensitivity and conscientiousness.

16

Value Systems and Attitudes

While value systems, such as worldviews about religion and the role of the environment as

compared to mankind, are often measured on a country-wide scale, these ‘centrisms’ filter down

to the individual level to affect pro-environmental behaviors and actions. Values are considered

to be our ideas about the worth of things; in this case, the worth of our environment as compared

to humanity. Higher levels of ecocentric values are related to higher engagement in pro-

environmental behaviors (Casey and Scott 2006; Jagers et al. 2016). Similarly, individuals

valuing ecocentrism show more pro-environmental attitudes and subjective norms, which then

feed into behavior (Soyez 2012).

Attitudes are seen as the expression of beliefs and values, often directed at specific areas or

behaviors. The literature about the relationship between attitudes and pro-environmental

behavior is extensive, although occasionally researchers will utilize words like personal concern,

personal norms, and values to describe attitudes. Research shows that attitudes are a strong

predictor of intention (Kaiser et al. 1999a; Kaiser et al. 1999b; Levine and Strube 2012). This

could be because attitudes take into account the moral realm which means that they utilize

feelings of personal obligation towards the environment rather than solely based on rationality

(Kaiser et al. 1999a). There is also a moderate relationship between attitudes and pro-

environmental behavior, both general and specific. In his analysis of data from the 2000 General

Social Survey, Bedrous (2008) states that personal level concern about a variety of

environmental issues, such as paying higher taxes or prices that signify how far an individual is

17

willing to go to protest the environment, is more tied to general pro-environmental behaviors

rather than specific. However, multiple studies have shown that the relationship strengthens

when attitudes are predicting specific behaviors rather than general (Kaiser and Schultz 2009;

Kaiser et al. 1999b; Mobley et al. 2010). Engagement in recycling behaviors are predicted by

positive attitudes about recycling, measured by questions such as if recycling is sensible or a

waste of time, hygienic, or rewarding (Lakhan 2017; Taylor and Todd 1995; Tonglet et al. 2004).

Kaiser et al. (2005) also found that attitudes account for the majority of variance in conservation

behavior. Individuals with negative attitudes towards growth and technology are more likely to

engage in pro-environmental behavior as well (Iwata 2004). Overall, the attitude-behavior

relationship is heavily discussed in the environmental field.

Past Behavior

Understandings of past actions and frequencies of behavior are also being incorporated into

models to predict future pro-environmental behavior. Some researchers theorize that past

behavior should be included in TPB (Azjen 1985). Past behavior has been used as a predictor for

many general pro-environmental behavior studies (Azjen 1985; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). It

has also been used as a variable to successfully predict recycling-specific behavior (Aguilar-

Luzon et al. 2012; Tonglet et al. 2004). Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) found that past behavior

also influences intention to perform future behaviors independently when looking at carbon

offsetting behaviors of English suburb residents.

18

Contextual Factors

Many predictors of pro-environmental behavior are influenced heavily by contextual constraints.

These factors refer to restrictions beyond an individual’s control, such as financial constraints,

access and improvement of physical infrastructure, and greater economic and political

conditions. Different scenarios are influenced by different contextual factors, which can in turn

affect intentions and behaviors (Chao and Lam 2011; Lakhan 2017). For example, recycling

behaviors are related to contextual constrains such as size and location of home, income level,

and access to curbside programs (Kaiser et al. 1999b; Lakhan 2017; Tonglet et al. 2004).

Behaviors related to energy conservation, such as turning lights off when exiting a room or

adjusting a thermostat, are influenced by geographic location, temperature, and home

characteristics (Kaiser et al. 1999b). While contextual factors are present in all scenarios,

Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) argue that travel and transportation-oriented behaviors are more

influenced by these factors than consumption or home-oriented behaviors. This may be due to

the relationship between urbanization and available transportation alternatives.

Country-Level Economic Constraints

The country in which pro-environmental behavior is studied can influence the relationship and

prominence of that behavior. This includes the overall affluence of the country as well as the

spectrum of collectivist to individualist values. Often, the financial capabilities and quality of

infrastructure are key indicators of the development of the country (Kaiser et al. 1999b). The

financial values of the government, either locally or nationally, will determine the extent to

19

which sustainability-oriented systems, such as public transportation, curbside recycling

programs, and educational campaigns, are prioritized in their communities (Kaiser et al. 1999b).

These values are often categorized as collectivism, which prioritizes the success of the group

over the individual, or individualism, which emphasizes individual identity and decision-making.

Countries that prioritize collectivism include South Korea and Japan, whereas the United States

and Germany are more individualistic in their country-wide values. Studies have shown that

people in developed countries engage in more pro-environmental behaviors (Ermolaeva 2010;

Morren and Grinstein 2016). In their meta-analysis of behaviors in 28 countries, Morren and

Grinstein (2016) find that intention is more likely to manifest into environmental behaviors like

recycling or conserving energy in developed or individualistic countries; they noted that the two

qualities are not mutually exclusive, as countries like Finland and Israel are developed but not

individualistic and Australia is both developed and individualistic. However, this association can

vary by behavior, as citizens of developing countries are shown to be focused more on local

environmental problems, like contaminants in a river or a lack of recycling infrastructure,

whereas those in industrialized countries are more concerned about global issues like climate

change and deforestation (Ermolaeva 2010). These conclusions can be attributed to the affluence

hypothesis, as discussed earlier.

Subjective Norms and Social Pressures

The influence of external parties, such as friends, coworkers, community members and families,

on behavior is referred to as the subjective norm. These social pressures impact the compliance

of individuals in a variety of behaviors, from the ability to recycle to purchasing environmentally

20

products to telecommuting for work rather than driving or flying to an office. They can also

precede behavior by influencing intention to perform the behavior first (Kaiser et al. 2005).

Studies indicate that different groups respond to different sources of influence. Lakhan (2017)

states that social pressures impact pro-environmental behavior for ethnic minorities when the

message is delivered via religious and community leaders. For college students, Swaim et al.

(2014) find that the influence of a business leader, professor, or politician is positively related to

the intention for the student to make a decision about recycling for an internship scenario. The

social norms also vary based on the type of behavior. Soyez (2012) finds that for individuals of

Anglo backgrounds, social norms influence the consumption patterns related to organic and local

food choices. For households in mid-sized city, Taylor and Todd (1995) find subjective norms

are more important for waste reduction behaviors when the behaviors are less entrenched. The

variable of subjective norms is rarely studied independently as a predictor of environmentally-

friendly behavior. In both cases above, subjective norm is analyzed with other variables such as

the simplicity or convenience of a behavior, as detailed in the TPB.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Perceived behavioral control (PBC) lies at the crossroads between individual and contextual

predictors. It refers to the perception of simplicity or difficulty of a behavior and, according to

the TPB, is shown to connect both to intentions as well as directly to pro-environmental

behaviors (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999b; Morren and Grinstein 2016; Taylor

and Todd 1995). Generally, PBC is measured by asking participants how complicated a specific

or general behavior is to do on a scale from easy to hard. Morren and Grinstein (2016) find in

21

their meta-analysis that PBC is more useful in predicting pro-environmental behaviors in

developed countries. According to Kaiser and Gutscher (2003), PBC is more valid when

predicting specific behaviors and becomes unreliable as behaviors aggregate and have more

variance. In their study, PBC was significant in predicting whether a person recycled glass,

avoided using a car downtown, recycled paper, and was a member of an environmental

organization (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003). The PBC of these behaviors is an outcome of a

combination of variables such as convenience, access, and opportunity (Lakhan 2017). For

example, recycling and garbage reduction behaviors rely heavily on access to curbside

programming. Taylor and Todd (1995) study a community with advanced waste management

and find that PBC positively influences recycling behaviors and intentions. In Ontario, recycling

programming had been a cornerstone of the sustainability platform, but usage stalled over time;

Lakhan (2017) concluded that the PBC for ethnic minority communities was one of the most

significant predictors of recycling intention after an awareness campaign was implemented. On

the contrary, Swaim et al. (2014) find that PBC is weak as related to the intentions or behaviors

of recycling. However, the student participants report strong PBC as an independent variable.

This indicates that the student participants in the Swaim et al. (2014) study believed they had

control over their recycling behaviors in theory but did not have sufficient experience in

environmental settings to apply that behavioral control to actual action or implementation of

recycling programs.

22

Demographic Predictors

Research on the correlation between demographics and levels of pro-environmental behavior has

increased over the past few decades as governments and industries try to more effectively target

educational and awareness campaigns, policies, and products. However, little consensus has

emerged within these studies regarding which demographic variables are most reliably

associated with pro-environmental behavior (Klineberg et al. 1998). The demographics often

vary based on locality and extent of the issue (ex: community vs country pollution). Although

studies have been conducted on a wide range of variables, from religiosity to political identity to

size of home, the most common and contested demographics as related to environmental concern

and behavior are gender, age, and education.

Gender

Gender, primarily viewed as a binary between men and women in the literature, can be used as a

significant predictor of pro-environmental behavior (Klineberg et al. 1998). Most of the findings

remain consistent for a range of behaviors, attitudes, and values, showing women as more

environmentally friendly or showing no significant gender differences (Bedrous 2008; Levine

and Strube 2012; Zelezny et al. 2000). In some studies, women are more likely to be more

environmentally conscious in their attitudes (Casey and Scott 2006; Zelezny et al. 2000) as well

as their behaviors (Barr 2003; Hunter et al. 2004; Mobley et al. 2010). This is not limited to the

United States, as Zelezny et al. (2010) reports gender differences in over a dozen countries that

show women as more likely to report stronger ecocentric attitudes. Many researchers argue that

23

gender socialization provides a context for the origins of behavioral differences. Women are

traditionally socialized into caregiver roles that prompt them to be more compassionate and

nurturing, which are traits often associated with environmental concern (Hunter et al. 2004;

Casey and Scott 2006). Other studies show gender differences based on the variable measured.

For example, Hunter et al. (2004) reports that women participate in more private-sphere

environmental behaviors (such as recycling in the home) than men across multiple countries, but

there is no significant effect of gender participation in public-sphere behaviors (such as

participating in a protest). Levine and Strube (2012) reported that higher levels of environmental

knowledge for men produced more favorable pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore, some

conclude that there are no significant gendered behavioral differences in the literature overall.

Age

Age demographics have shown more consistent results when compared to levels of pro-

environmental behavior. Generally, younger people are more likely to engage these behaviors

than older people (Casey and Scot 2006; Klineberg et al. 1998). There a few possible

explanations for this negative relationship. Younger generations, especially those who have

grown up in the past few decades, have been integrated into a society where the environmental

movement has become more prominent through increased social activism and legislation. They

are more likely to have grown up in households or attended schools that have already engaged in

pro-environmental behavior such as recycling or energy conservation compared to older

generations who were not socialized in such an environment. Dunlap et al. (2000) elaborates on

this by suggesting younger individuals are less supportive of traditional worldviews and more

24

integrated than older generations into the environmental paradigm, which includes more concern

for environmental well-being.

Education

Education is the strongest demographic predictor of pro-environmental behavior. A higher level

of education is positively correlated with higher endorsements of ecocentric attitudes and

behaviors (Casey and Scott 2006; Klineberg et al. 1998; Levine and Strube 2012). Within a

university setting, age is often used as a proxy for education level and therefore older students

have more favorable attitudes and engage in more pro-environmental behavior (Levine and

Strube 2012). Similarly, Meyer (2016) surveys 559 undergraduate liberal arts students about

various environmental behaviors and priorities and discovers that more time spent on campus,

and therefore more education, leads to increased likelihood of behaviors such as recycling and

printing doubled sided. The simplest explanation for this relationship is the well-known

liberalizing effect of education. As individuals progress in their educational attainments, they are

more likely to take a liberal stance on sociopolitical issues such as same-sex marriage and

immigration (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2009). Environmental protection and conservation

are often seen as more liberal and progressive issues, aligning with the above trend.

25

Methodology

Data Collection

The data from this survey were collected through a web-based survey of full-time undergraduate

students at Rollins College. Surveys are the most widely used method of collecting data in social

science research (Singleton and Straits 2010). They can be used to understand a variety of

subjects. Additionally, surveys can be used to provide extremely detailed information about large

and often heterogeneous populations (Singleton and Straits 2010). Based on the context of this

study, as described further below, a survey instrument is the most effective way to gather data to

examine my research questions. However, surveys do have limitations. A cross-sectional survey,

where data are all collected at the same time, cannot establish a direct cause and effect

relationship; only correlation can be established. In this field, social desirability bias tendencies

are possible as respondents may want to choose answers that put them in good light with regards

to environmental responsibility. This will hold true especially for respondents who complete the

survey in group settings such as classes or during tabling, as they are more susceptible to the

opinions of their peers. Surveys overall are also limited by reliance on reported, rather than

observed, behavior, as prior research finds that people generally overestimate their pro-

environmental behavior (Chao and Lam 2011; Levine and Strube 2012; Singleton and Straits

2010). Therefore results must be interpreted with caution, especially with regards to reporting

pro-environmental behavior (Chao and Lam 2011).

26

To design this instrument, I began by looking at other studies that utilized the TPB to study

environmental-related behavior. This included studies by Casey and Scott (2006), Dunlap et al.

(2000), Ermolaeva (2010), Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010), as well as the 2010 General Social

Survey. I compiled questions from the surveys into a document and simplified duplicate items.

The remaining questions were coded to align with each section of the TPB: behavior, intention,

subjective norm, attitude, and perceived behavioral control. Questions that did not align were

removed and additional questions added to ensure enough coverage of each variable. The survey

instrument was designed to be of reasonable length to encourage participation while still

addressing the different dimensions of the TPB.

The survey is a combination of direct and indirect questions that ask about respondents’

behaviors and attitudes towards a variety of general and specific environmental issues. The items

follow an inverted-funnel sequence by asking first about specific behaviors then moving into

broader questions about attitudes and feelings about the environment. By putting easier, quicker

questions about behavior at the beginning of the survey, I attempt to elicit a more honest

response from participants as well as deter them from exiting prematurely, growing tired, or

feeling negatively towards the remaining questions (Barr 2003; Singleton and Strait 2010).

The instrument was then constructed on Qualtrics where items were grouped together based on

variable and response type. I pre-tested the survey with ten students to check for duplication or

clarification issues and revised accordingly. Once the survey instrument was finalized, I

submitted and was granted approval from the Rollins College Institutional Review Board without

any restrictions. There is a full copy of the instrument in the Appendix.

27

Subjects were recruited several ways. The surveys were self-administrated electronically over a

two week collection period. In order to appeal to a wide variety of students, the survey invitation

was sent twice from my academic advisor’s email address and twice from the email of

EcoRollins, the environmental student organization that I run. I reserved a table outside of the

main campus center twice, for one and a half hours each time, and provided tablets for students

to quickly fill out the survey on their way in and out of lunch. I also printed out small sheets of

paper with information about the survey and a QR code and scattered them on tables in popular

study and meeting spaces so that students could scan the code and take the survey on their phone.

I presented in classes ranging in class year and field of study, including an intro to sociology

course and a general education ecology course. Additionally, I sent specific emails and

invitations to complete the survey to groups such as scholarship cohorts, members of

environmental and social justice student organizations, and open class pages.

A total of 512 surveys were taken during the data collection period. In order to accurately

analyze the responses, I removed surveys with more than a few incomplete responses from the

sample. The final number of participants was 437. It is important to note that this is a non-

probability sample and therefore comes with the related biases. However, because my goal is to

test the relationships between TPB characteristics and different behaviors, the representativeness

is less central to the research question. However, due to this limitation, the data should not be

interpreted as accurate frequencies of behaviors or attitudes because this sample is not

representative.

28

Sample and Setting

The population from this study is taken from undergraduate students at Rollins College. This

school is an independent, liberal arts, coeducational institution offering undergraduate, graduate,

and doctoral degrees in three academic units. Rollins was established in 1885 and currently sits

on an 80-acre campus in Winter Park, FL. The College of Liberal Arts (CLA), of which the

participants in this sample were drawn from, is traditional residential liberal arts college for

undergraduates, and offers over 60 degrees of study with an average class size of 17 students.

Varsity athletic teams participate in Division II competitions, and the college is home to Greek

life and more than 100 student organizations. The campus is home to 17 residential halls, a fine

arts museum, and more alongside Lake Virginia.

According to the 2017-18 Fact Book produced by Rollins College (2017), there are 1,963

undergraduate students enrolled in the CLA program. The current CLA student body is 39%

male and 61% female and 60% of student live in college-operated and owned residence halls.

The most recent incoming class includes students from all over the world, with 53% from

Florida, around 9% international, and the remaining 38% from the remaining US

states. The racial/ethnic profile for CLA students can be seen in Figure 3 below. While my study

does not look into behaviors and attitudes based on racial or ethnic background, noting that the

majority of the student population studied identifies as white may provide insights later on to

justify the existence or lack thereof certain programs and behaviors.

29

Figure 3. 2017 Race/Ethnicity for the Rollins College of Liberal Arts

Source: Rollins College Fact Book 2017-18 (Rollins College 2017)

The majority of students enrolled in CLA are of traditional college age, aside from some outliers.

A more detailed breakdown is shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Age Distribution of CLA Students, Fall 2017

Data Source: Personal correspondence with Udeth Lugo (Rollins College Office of Institutional Research 2017)

3% 4%

16%

10%

3%

4%

60%

Asian

Black or African American

Hispanic/Latino

International

Race/Ethnicity Unknown

Two or more races

White

0

200

400

600

800

1000

18-19 20-21 22-23 24 and older

Num

ber

of

Stu

den

ts

Age (years)

30

Variables of Interest

As noted above, the survey questions serve as indicators for different behaviors and predictors in

line with the TPB. As mentioned above, the items are sourced from multiple studies on pro-

environmental behavior that utilize some or all components of the TPB.

Behaviors. The first segment of the survey instrument includes 16 questions on the frequencies

of different behaviors. This includes questions about behaviors such as turning off lights,

recycling and composting waste, choosing alternative modes of transportation, and purchasing

environmentally friendly products. All variables in this segment are taken from a study by

Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010). Participants scored their answers on a five point scale ranging

from ‘always’ to ‘never’ engaging in the behavior.

Intention. Six items are used to measure behavioral intention. I measure this variable using items

from different surveys. Two items from Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) and one item from the

2010 General Social Survey are measured using a five point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’

to ‘strongly disagree’. Two original questions and one more from the 2010 General Social

Survey about standard of living are measured on a four point scale ranging from ‘very likely’ to

‘very unlikely’.

Subjective norm. This variable is measured through three questions, again from different sources.

I pulled one item, ‘I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is

concerned about environmental issues’ from Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010). The other two

31

items, ‘I think my friends and family want me to participate in environmental activities’ and ‘I

think the setting at Rollins encourages me to care more about the environment’ are original

questions. All items are measured on a five point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly

disagree’.

Perceived behavioral control. All four questions used to measure this variable are original items

based on the context of the campus. The items ask about the ease of engaging in recycling,

alternative transportation, green consumerism, and general environmentally-friendly behaviors at

Rollins. Participants scored their answers on a five point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to

‘strongly disagree’ with the option for ‘unsure’ in the middle.

Attitude. The final variable in this study is attitude, which has been measured through 19

questions. Four items are taken from the 2010 General Social Survey. The remaining 15 items

are directly taken from the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEPS) (Dunlap et al. 2000). This

tool expands on the New Environmental Paradigm Scale by addressing broad ecological

problems in the modern world as opposed to specific, narrow environmental problems (Dunlap et

al. 2000). The NEPS is a set of 15 questions that combines to provide a single component

measure of environmental attitude (Kaiser et al. 1999b). Questions address aspects of ecological

concern ranging from the reality of limits to growth to possibility of an ecocrisis and alternates

phrasing between pro- and anti-ecological views evenly to tap primitive beliefs about the

relationship between humanity and nature (Dunlap et al. 2000; Kaiser et al. 1999b). The more

items an individual endorses on the NEPS, the more concern that person has for the environment

32

(Casey and Scott 2006; Dunlap et al. 2000). Measurements of attitude are chosen from a five

point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Each variable was constructed into an index to allow for easier analysis. There was a total of five

indices. The first, pro-environmental behavior, was made of 16 items. It has a relatively high

alpha reliability of .816. The index for intention was made of five items. Although the survey

originally included six questions on intentions, the alpha was relatively low. Therefore, I

eliminated one item and ended up with a reliability of .838, the highest of all indices. Subjective

norm was the smallest index with only three items included, one of which was reverse coded.

The alpha is the lowest as well, only .392, which can in part be attributed to the size of the index.

The index for perceived behavioral control included four items and has an alpha of .675. Finally,

the attitudes index was the largest, including 19 items. Eight of the items were reverse coded.

The index has a reliability score of .789.

33

Institutional Context: Sustainability at Rollins

In order to understand individual behaviors, it is important to understand the context in which the

individual is acting. In this case, Rollins College acts as the institution. In higher education, the

introduction of environmentally sustainable academic courses, student organizations, campaigns,

and events has become more popular with the rise of the modern environmental movement

beginning in the late 1960’s. Rollins College was no exception to this undertaking and

implemented things based on the wants and needs of the campus and its community. At Rollins,

environmental sustainability had its origins in the academic context through the development of

a sustainable development and environmental studies programs. From there, students became the

force behind many sustainability programs. While the progress of future initiatives is arguably

constrained by a lack of a formal Office of Sustainability and full-time staff member dedicated to

solely sustainability programming, a number of campaigns and programs have been implemented

over the years to draw awareness and enact change to improve the sustainability footprint of the

campus. The information discussed below is gathered from personal experiences with the

Sustainability Program and through discussions with Ann Francis, the current program

coordinator and administrative assistant with the environmental studies department.

Origins of Sustainability

The history of The Sustainability Program at Rollins College began in 1999 when two students

initiated a recycling program. For the first few years, they and advisor Ann Francis focused on

promotion and expansion to all areas of campus, eventually moving from large academic

34

buildings and offices to residential halls. Through student leadership, the campus began to

promote environmental awareness through participation in national events such as America

Recycles Day and Earth Day. In 2003, President Rita Bornstein formalized Rollins’s

commitment to environmental sustainability by joining more than 275 university and college

presidents in over 40 countries when she signed the Talloires Declaration, the first official

statement for higher education officials to incorporate sustainability and environmental literacy

into university framework and teaching. For the next decade, sustainability was introduced in

various departments through student projects and office commitments. In 2008, the Committee

on Environmental and Sustainable Issues (CESI) was created and includes faculty, staff, and

students to holistically discuss campus-wide issues. The recycling program was renamed the

Rollins Sustainability Program in 2010 and thus began the expansion of awareness and projects

to other components of sustainability.

Waste Management and Reduction

The recycling program has been a major focus of the Sustainability Program. As the program

expanded into residential halls, the logistics and hauling of recyclables was transferred to the

Housekeeping Department. Around 2009, the campus moved from multi- to single- stream

recycling. This means that previously, there were separate bins for metal cans, plastics, and glass

but now all are put into one bin for convenience. The system remained unchanged for years until

a startling discovery was made by a student in 2016 for her thesis. She discovered that the

campus recycling hauler had been bringing the recyclables straight to the landfill for over five

years due to unclear contamination issues. Since then, the contract has been changed to ensure

35

that recycling is being handled properly and the Sustainability Program, Facilities, and

Purchasing departments have been working closely to improve the overall system through

education and infrastructure pilot programs.

Numerous other waste reduction measures and awareness campaigns have been initiated over the

years. In 2007, students created Mount Trashmore to show the amount of trash collected in one

dorm in a single weekend, drawing attention to our excessive consumeristic habits as well as the

role of businesses in producing waste. To further encourage students to waste less in their

everyday lives, the Sustainability Program began distributing “EcoBundles” to incoming first

year and transfers that included a reusable water bottle, reusable bag, and other sustainable

products to promote initiatives on campus. This initiative continues as of today as part of the

freshman orientation process with other information on how to recycle on campus. Since 2012,

the Sustainability Program has held a clothing swap each semester to draw attention to the

impact of fast fashion on the environment. Until 2017, the event was held in partnership with

Other Peoples’ Property, a secondhand shop, to draw in members of the public and increase

attendance and waste reduction, but the event is now operated only by the Sustainability

Program.

Through collaboration with multiple departments, Rollins College banned Styrofoam from

internal use around 2009, although individual departments have still purchased Styrofoam

products for their use. Events Services moved to all china glassware and silverware for catered

events in 2016, significantly reducing the amount of single use plastics for events. Additionally,

36

Rollins Dining Services has shown increasing commitment to waste reduction in their practices

in recent years. For example, they moved to a tray-less dining hall in August 2017, which is a

program shown to reduce food waste by limiting the amount of food taken per person. In spring

of 2017, students from the Sustainability Program collaborated with the cafes and convenience

store on campus to remove plastic bags from all locations. The reaction to this change, while

controversial, was tracked through surveys and feedback data that showed that a majority

approved of plastic bag removal. Most recently, Dining Services has made huge strides in waste

reduction by eliminating disposable to-go containers in place of an OZZI system in fall 2017.

The OZZI program utilizes reusable to-go containers; guests pay a one-time fee to receive a

token that can be exchanged for a hard shell container to fill in the dining hall. Once finished,

they deposit the dirty container in an OZZI vending-like machine and receive a token to

complete the cycle. The student organization EcoRollins reinforced this program by

collaborating with Dining Services to distribute free reusable cutlery sets to students, faculty, and

staff to use.

Although the campus does not have any formal green purchasing policies, the Purchasing

Department has implemented small changes throughout multiple departments. They purchase

30% post-consumer paper products to be distributed across campus, and all campus printers were

defaulted to printing double sided beginning in 2010 to save paper. When sending requests for

proposals to vendors, language on environmental consideration is included when appropriate and

companies are asked to submit any other pertinent environmental information.

37

Energy and Water

Between 2005 and 2007, the Sustainability Program focused on energy efficiency on campus.

They distributed free compact fluorescent light bulbs, screened films, hosted panels, and most

notably, initiated the construction and implementation of solar panels on the roof of the Bush

Science Building in collaboration with Facilities Management. These 1600-watt photovoltaic

panels provided a demonstration of solar potential in Central Florida and showcased student

interest in the technology. The system was removed during building renovation in 2014 but has

since been reinstalled.

The Rollins Facilities Management office redesigned many of their practices to conserve water

and electricity as well. For example, they now follow an irrigation plan that uses 90% non-

potable water and reduced overall water consumption by 60% through adjusted practices such as

incorporating rain sensors, a simplified native plant palette, and integrated pest management

(Rollins College Facilities Management N.d.). To encourage less reliance on bottled water across

campus, Facilities has installed over 50 hydration stations since 2011. These machines connect to

water fountains and offer a water bottle filler with a motion sensor for filtered tap water and keep

track of the number of disposable water bottles saved. Across campus, the use of hydration

stations has saved over 2.5 million plastic bottles in the past six years.

38

Transportation

Rollins is a small urban campus and therefore transportation is always a point of discussion for

sustainability. Due to limited parking on campus, the Sustainability Program promotes

alternative transportation methods. The primary program for this is the Rollins Bike Rental

Program, which started in 2009 by four students, two of whom were coordinators with the

Sustainability Program. This program allows any Rollins student, faculty, or staff to rent a bike

for free for up to three days at a time. There are now over 40 bikes in circulation and the program

employs three part-time students for maintenance and repairs. Additionally, Rollins promotes the

use of the SunRail light rail system, of which a station was built across from campus in 2014.

The Sustainability Program collaborated with reThink your Commute in 2015 to encourage more

use of the SunRail. Rollins also is home to two ZipCars permanently parked on campus. Students

are given a discount for signing up for the program to encourage shared car use rather than single

occupant vehicles.

Food Systems

To improve the sustainability of food systems at Rollins, the campus employs two main

programs. The student-run Rollins Urban Farm was started in spring of 2015; some of the eleven

plots are used for academic purposes such as sustainable agriculture botany courses but the

majority are used to grow a variety of produce that is sold to Dining Services to be used on

campus, primarily in the salad station. The farm allows students to help seed, harvest, and weed

so they can get experience growing their own food. Starting in 2017, the Sustainability Program

39

and Wellness Committee brought Seed2Source on campus to provide local, fresh, organic food

to students, staff and faculty. Interested people can preorder a weekly box of seasonal produce

and eggs from the community-supported agriculture program. Recently, Dining Services has

begun discussions to bring Seed2Source produce into the dining halls and convenience stores.

Other Key Programs

In 2013, Rollins College was designated a fair trade campus by the Fair Trade Colleges and

Universities branch of Fair Trade Campaigns USA. Fair trade is a certification for products that

are paid for in fair wages, often to artisans and farmers in developing countries, to help maintain

sustainable business practices. Through this designation, the school provides a number of fair

trade certified products in gift stores, the bookstore, and the convenience store. The

Sustainability Program hosts events each year to promote fair trade purchasing such as Fair

Trade your Finals, Fair Trade Chocolate Sale, and photo competitions.

Students can choose to live sustainably on campus as well. The Mowbray House served as the

first ecohouse from 2010-2012 and housed 7 people each year. This was a renovated single-

family home on campus that included a small garden, native plants, a worm compost, and other

energy and water efficiency programs. During campus restructuring in 2013, the Mowbray

House was demolished and the EcoHouse moved to a renovated wing of Elizabeth Hall where it

remains today. Students who live in this EcoHouse are close to the urban farm and are required

to participate in sustainability events throughout the year.

40

Through student initiative and intra-departmental collaboration, Rollins has made strides over the

past two decades in improving the quantity and quality of sustainability programming. By

addressing multiple components of sustainability, the campus community is able to try to

increase levels of knowledge and engagement for a broad audience.

41

Results

The analysis includes a total of 437 responses. Participants ranged in age from 18 to above 24,

with the majority identifying as between 20-21 years old. The smallest age group was 24 and

older with only 3% of respondents. Throughout analysis, this group appears different, though the

small sample size limits my ability to interpret these findings. Students also selected their gender

identification. The overwhelming majority of respondents identified as female, 78%. This was

followed by male respondents (19.5%), transgender students (1.4%), and participants identifying

as “other” (1.1%). Figure 5 shows the breakdown of the demographic variables in the survey.

These results are not in line with the student population of the college, due to the

overrepresentation of women in the sample. These results reinforce that the sample is not

representative and therefore results cannot be extrapolated to generalize the entire student body.

Figure 5. Age and Gender Breakdown of Respondents

40.70%

44.20%

12.10%

3%

18-19 20-21 22-23 24 and older

19.50%

78%

1.40% 1.10%

Male Female Transgender Other

42

There was a total of 47 questions in the survey. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the univariate

responses for each question. All of the questions were ranked on a four or five measure scale.

Table 1. Univariate Results of Pro-Environmental Behaviors (n=16)

Please indicate how often you: Always

Most of

the time

About half

of the time Sometimes Never

Turn off the tap while you brush

your teeth 56.0% 16.5% 9.9% 9.6% 8%

Turn off lights you aren’t using 36.4 49.0 9.8 4.1 0.7

Recycle 32.8 37.2 14.8 11.8 3.5

Share a car journey with someone

else 20.8 34.3 16.9 24.3 3.7

Drive economically (e.g., braking

or accelerating gently) 19.8 38.2 20.0 13.8 8.3

Cut down on the amount you fly 18.0 17.3 12.7 24.2 27.9

Avoid eating meat 17.7 9.2 7.3 23.6 42.2

Reuse or repair items instead of

throwing them away 15.1 32.0 24.0 23.8 5.0

Walk, cycle or take public

transport for short journeys (i.e.,

trips of less than 3 miles)

10.3 23.1 17.6 32.0 16.9

Buy environmentally-friendly

products 9.8 25.2 27.5 33.0 4.6

Save water by taking shorter

showers 9.4 16.8 20.0 33.8 20.0

Eat food which is organic,

locally-grown or in season 8.3 26.4 27.8 30.5 7.1

Buy products with less packaging 4.4 14.7 25.8 39.9 15.2

Take part in a protest about an

environmental issue 3.0 4.6 8.7 21.6 62.2

Compost your food waste 1.6 5.1 6.9 16.1 70.3

Write to your government

officials about an environmental

issue

1.4 4.3 3.4 12.8 78.0

43

Students were asked to report how often they engaged in different pro-environmental behaviors,

which varied in difficulty. Out of all of the behaviors, turning off the tap water while brushing

teeth had the highest proportion of respondents who indicated they always engage in the

behavior. Nearly three-quarters of respondents always or most of the time performed this

behavior. On the contrary, students were least likely to write to their government officials about

an environmental issue, totaling only 1.4% indicating they always do. Similarly, this behavior

had the largest proportion of students who stated that they never write to their official, a total of

78.0%. Other popular behaviors include turning off lights, recycling, carpooling, and buying

environmentally-friendly products. Composting and protesting about an environmental issue

remain the least popular behaviors, with 70.3% and 62.2% stating they have never performed

the respective behaviors. While the survey did not explicitly ask participants to consider the

frequency of behaviors experienced solely at Rollins, the accessibility and financial constructs

of the typical college student might have an impact on the responses. Many students (actual

percentage) live in an on-campus residence hall at Rollins and therefore do not have access to a

composting program. Additionally, many environmentally-friendly products, such as those at

Whole Foods or LUSH, are priced higher than traditional products. Just under 48% of the

student body come from outside of Florida. Therefore, it is plausible to connect the higher

percentages of students who do not cut down on air travel to the fact that they might rely on it

to get to and from Rollins. Socialization practices may also impact the frequency of some

behaviors. Turning off lights and the tap are both commonly stated as ‘easy’ ways to live more

environmentally friendly and are often some of the easiest behaviors for children to understand.

44

Table 2. Univariate Results of Intentions (n=3)

Please indicate how likely you

would be to engage in the

following behaviors:

Very likely Likely Unlikely Very unlikely

I would pass along environmental

information to my friends and

family

49.4% 40.5% 7.8% 2.3%

I would participate in events

organized by environmental

groups on campus like

EcoRollins or the Sustainability

Program

29.1 44.2 20.1 6.6

I would accept cuts in my

standard of living in order to

protect the environment

20.6 53.8 19.7 5.9

Table 3. Univariate Results of Intentions, Subjective Norms, Attitudes, and PBC (n=28)

Please indicate how much you

agree or disagree with the

following statements:

Strongly

agree Agree Unsure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Plants and animals have as much

right as humans to exist 51.3% 33.4% 8.9% 4.6% 1.8%

Humans are seriously abusing the

environment 49.2 40.5 7.1 2.5 0.7

If things continue on their present

course, we will soon experience a

major ecological catastrophe

47.1 36.8 11.7 3.7 0.7

Despite our special abilities,

humans are still subject to the

laws of nature

38.7 47.7 11.1 2.1 0.5

Generally, I am concerned about

environmental issues 34.1 53.5 5.7 5.3 1.4

I am interested in issues about

environmental pollution 31.9 52.3 7.8 6.0 2.1

We are approaching the limit of

the number of people the Earth

can support

30.2 34.6 23.1 9.6 2.5

45

When humans interfere with

nature it often produces

disastrous consequences

29.4 51.4 11.0 7.1 1.1

I think the setting at Rollins

encourages me to care more about

the environment

25.0 51.1 15.6 6.7 1.6

The balance of nature is very

delicate and easily upset 24.5 49.4 16.9 8.0 1.1

I find it easy to recycle at Rollins 23.6 53.0 8.9 12.4 2.1

I think of myself as someone who

is very concerned with

environmental issues

23.6 44.4 16.9 13.0 2.1

Almost everything we do in

modern life harms the

environment

21.5 52.9 13.3 11.4 0.9

The Earth is like a spaceship with

very limited room and resources 20.4 46.1 20.2 10.8 2.5

I find it easy to be

environmentally friendly at

Rollins

18.4 51.5 19.5 9.0 1.6

The Earth has plenty of natural

resources if we just learn how to

develop them

17.4 40.7 23.8 13.5 4.6

I find it easy to use an alternative

mode of transportation at Rollins 15.1 37.1 18.5 23.8 5.5

I think my friends and family

want me to participate in

environmental activities

13.5 42.4 31.7 8.9 3.4

I find it easy to purchase

environmentally friendly products

at Rollins

8.0 32.6 35.6 18.8 5.0

Human ingenuity will ensure that

we do not make the Earth

unlivable

6.7 28.0 39.5 20.2 5.5

I think of myself as an

environmentally-friendly

consumer

5.7 50.1 31.8 11.0 1.4

Humans were meant to rule over

the rest of nature 4.6 11.7 17.4 35.7 30.7

46

Humans will eventually learn

enough about how nature works

to be able to control it

3.9 21.5 29.1 34.8 10.8

The balance of nature is strong

enough to cope with the impacts

of modern industrial nations

3.7 12.6 22.1 43.7 17.9

Humans have the right to modify

the natural environment to suit

their needs

3.2 21.1 25.4 40.0 10.3

We worry too much about the

future of the environment and not

enough about prices and jobs

today

2.8 6.7 12.8 44.0 33.7

I would not want my family or

friends to think of me as someone

who is concerned about

environmental issues

2.5 5.0 6.4 39.4 46.7

The so-called “ecological crisis”

facing humankind has been

greatly exaggerated

2.5 8.7 15.8 36.4 36.6

In addition to pro-environmental behaviors, students provided insight into their environmental

attitudes, intentions, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Overall, it looks like the

respondents have a relatively eco-centric attitude and promote or are inclined to care about

environmental issues. One of the most notable distribution of responses is the 87.7% participant

agreement with the statement that humans are seriously abusing their environment. The

acknowledgement of the impact of humanity on the natural world shows that students follow

more of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEPS) rather than the more human-centric

worldview of previous generations. The majority of respondents also indicate that they view

themselves as generally concerned about the environment (87.6%) or issues specific to

environmental pollution (84.2%), which reinforces endorsement of the NEPS. Contrary to the

popularity of purchasing environmentally-friendly products as indicated in the behavior sector,

47

only about half of respondents consider themselves an environmentally-friendly consumer

(55.8%). This begins to show the inconsistency between behavior and preceding thought and

attitude. On a similar note, there is a variation between responses about behavior and the ease of

behavior. For example, only 10.3% of students state they always use an alternative mode of

transportation for short journeys yet 52.2% agree that it is easy to find an alternative mode of

transportation at Rollins. This shows a discrepancy between the availability of options and their

actual usage. This is not true for all behaviors, as the response of people who indicate they

always recycle (32.8%) is reinforced by the 76.6% of students who agree to some extent that it is

easy to recycle at Rollins.

When looking at options specifically at Rollins, students agreed or strongly agreed that they

found it easy to live environmentally friendly (69.9%), care about the environment (76.1%),

recycle (76.6%), use alternative transportation (52.2%), and purchase environmentally-friendly

products (40.6%). While these percentages are not considerably low, they still point to the fact

that the perception or reality of certain programs are lacking. For alternative transportation

methods, there is a challenge in perception and awareness, as Rollins offers multiple alternatives.

It is a similar story with recycling, because nearly every classroom, dorm room, and hallway are

equipped with recycling bins and signage. The smaller response about purchasing

environmentally-friendly products is most likely due to infrastructure deficits themselves;

Rollins offers some products in the convenience and book stores but overall the campus lacks a

comprehensive green purchasing policy. Setting is very important to producing effective

sustainable change, which is why the increased focus on expanding environmentally-friendly

options is a good precedent for encouraging pro-environmental behavior.

48

In line with the theory of planned behavior (TPB) framework, I then conducted a test to view the

correlations between the indexes of intentions, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control,

and attitudes. The index for pro-environmental behaviors was not included due to its position in

the framework as a separately-related variable influenced directly by intentions. In these

analyses, I report the pairwise association between each pair of these indexes. Table 4 displays

the results of these analyses.

Table 4. Correlations among all variables

Intentions Subjective

Norms

Perceived

Behavioral

Control

Attitudes

Intentions 1

Subjective Norms 0.525* 1

Perceived

Behavioral Control

0.207* 0.271* 1

Attitudes 0.614* 0.341* 0.034 1

* p < .001

Almost all of the indexes in the table are significantly and positively correlated with each other.

The relationship between the attitudes index and intentions index is the strongest, although only

moderately strong, with a correlation of 0.614. This is followed by the correlation between

intentions and subjective norm, 0.525 then subjective norms and attitudes, 0.341. The only

correlation that is not statistically significant in this study is between attitudes and perceived

behavioral control, which only has a value of 0.034 (n.s.). These results align with the expected

relationships between the variables of the TPB, as an increase in any one variable will mean an

increase in any other variable addressed. According to the TPB, attitude, perceived behavioral

49

control and subjective norm are positively and significantly correlated with intention. Similar to

other studies, attitude had the strongest correlation with intention (Kaiser et al. 1999; Levine and

Strube 2012).

I then conducted an OLS regression model using the same four indices to predict intention from

subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and attitudes. Table 5 presents the results of this

model. The advantage of the OLS regression is that it models the effect of each dependent

variable, while controlling for the others.

Table 5. Multiple Regression for Intention to Perform Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Beta t Sig. t

Subjective norms 0.347 8.691 0.000

Perceived behavioral control 0.093 2.863 0.004

Attitudes 0.670 13.753 0.000

Intercept -0.358 -2.739 0.006

This regression shows that all three indexes are significant and positive in their relationship with

intentions. Attitudes are the strongest predictors of intentions as compared to subjective norms or

perceived behavioral control with a beta estimate of 0.670. Both subjective norms and perceived

behavioral control are statistically significant predictors of intentions. These three indexes

account for 49.5% of the variation in intentions.

Another analysis, predicting behavior from intentions, completes the estimation of the TPB

mode. Intentions and behaviors have a .637 correlation (p < .001). This moderately strong,

positive association finishes the TPB framework and nearly all studies replicate this relationship

(Kaiser et al. 1999; Levine and Strube 2012; Morren and Grinstein 2016; Swaim et al. 2014). In

50

an OLS regression model predicting behavior from intentions, I find that 40.5% of the variance

in pro-environmental behavior can be explained by intentions and that there is a beta estimate of

0.575 (p < .001). In Figure 6 below, the results of all regressions have been displayed in the TPB

framework.

Figure 6. Regression Results Applied to the Theory of Planned Behavior

*p < .05

***p < .001

Additionally, I conducted a t-test to see if there were any significant differences on any of the

variables between men and women. Results of the t-test, displayed in Table 6, show that while

there is no significant relationship between gender on behavior (p = 0.083), there are statistically

significant differences between men and women on intentions (p < .01) and attitudes (p < .001).

Men have higher means than women for both variables; 2.31 > 2.06 for intentions and 2.49 >

Pro-Environmental

BehaviorIntentions

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioral

Control

Attitudes

0.575***

0.347***

0.093*

0.670***

51

2.19 for attitudes. This finding is opposite of the majority of studies, which find women to have

more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Casey and Scott 2006; Hunter et al. 2004).

Table 6. T-Test for Gender on All Variables, Equal Variances Assumed

Male (mean) Female (mean) Sig. (2-tailed)

Behaviors 3.24 3.12 0.083

Intentions 2.31 2.06 0.003

Subjective Norms 2.21 2.07 0.062

Perceived Behavioral Control 2.07 2.39 0.255

Attitudes 2.49 2.19 0.000

Finally, I looked for mean differences between age groups on all indexes. There were no

significant trends between age groups and any of the variables except for perceived behavioral

control, which showed a significance of 0.001. When looking at the means, the age group of 24

and older has a value of 2.19 which is at least 0.2 smaller than any other age group (data not

shown). However as mentioned earlier, the age group of 24 and older is significantly smaller

than the others; therefore, this interpretation must be viewed with caution.

52

Recommendations

Based on the responses of this survey, I have developed a set of recommendations on how

Rollins College can improve its sustainability footprint based on the needs and perceptions of the

student body. These suggestions take into account the current infrastructure of the campus and

are varied in their scope, feasibility, and simplicity. They are divided based on the variable of the

theory of planned behavior that they most strongly align with.

Attitudes

Improved Marketing. One of the clearest ways to improve attitudes about overall environmental

programming is by better marketing what already exists. By adjusting the verbiage and

perception of different programs, students can become informed about the choices they have

available and thus adjust their attitudes. It’s no secret that many of the sustainability programs

across campus are not well known. This becomes more evident in the survey results, which call

attention to the lack of transparency and awareness of most programs. By improving the

visibility of sustainable initiatives through more comprehensive videos, metrics boards, plaques,

and articles, the campus can improve its green image both externally and internally. Program

usage will increase, thus justifying their expansion.

Course Inclusion. Many times, a person’s attitudes and beliefs are the result of their socialization

and the knowledge they have obtained. To increase levels of knowledge, the college should

consider adding a required course that discusses environmental issues. The liberal arts education

53

promotes a broad knowledge of the wider world and an emphasis on problem solving, diversity,

and change. Adding a course on a prominent and urgent subject like environmentalism will help

reinforce this educational mission. The college could explore this through the general education

program or within each discipline. There is always some application of the environment to each

degree, such as responsible purchasing practices in the business department or the psychology of

environmental behavioral change.

Composting. Composting programs are becoming a more popular way to address the waste

produced each day. Students often inquire about the lack of composting on campus, which

indicates a potential area of already improving attitudes towards environmental programs. The

results show that composting is the least done behavior on campus, caused by a lack of

infrastructure. Rollins could capitalize on this already growing interest and attitude by moving

forward with discussions on a campus composting program. The use of plastic and paper

disposables on campus are starting to be replaced by compostable materials, especially in dining

locations and at events. Many departments are choosing to purchase compostable or

biodegradable materials because of the idea that they are eco-friendlier; this indicates that the

attitudes of faculty and staff are already favorable to this system. As of now, without a

composting system, these objects are still placed in a landfill like anything else. To make the

purchasing and waste disposable systems efficient and environmentally effective, it makes the

most sense to create a composting program. The campus is capable of producing at least 70

pounds of food waste at one meal alone on a slow day, as discovered by a recent event held on

campus on April 11, 2018 with the Rollins Sustainability Program and Dining Services. This

calls to attention the excessive amount of foot waste produced at Rollins and composting could

54

help this systemic issue. Options include a biodigester that can be housed on campus, partnering

with the City of Orlando or Winter Park for their food waste collection initiatives, or creating our

own contract with a farmer or digestion company. The college would also have the option of

having students manage the program, increasing its transparency and accessibility, similar to

Rochester Institute of Technology or the University of Georgia, both of which process immense

amounts of food waste each day. Direct student involvement can also help improve the influence

of subjective norms; seeing peer involvement may increase the likelihood of participation and

understanding of the impact of composting at Rollins.

Standardization of Recycling Signage and Bin Placement. Although the campus recycling

program is physically widespread, there are still small inconsistencies that create confusion and

distrust in the system. Creating standardized signage that is permanent throughout campus might

help to improve knowledge and attitudes towards the recycling program. Right now, recycling

bins are not always coupled with trash bins or placed on the same side, which can be an access

barrier for individuals with certain disabilities. The bins and walls above them are decorated with

a variety of signs and verbiage, much of which is outdated and incorrect. Although the

Sustainability Program does offer their insight and trainings for RAs and Peer Mentors, many

students are unaware of how to recycle correctly on campus as evident from the high levels of

contamination reported by our housekeepers and waste haulers. Improving attitudes through

visual clarity, uniformity and transparency will bring back trust and increase proper recycling.

55

Subjective Norms

Director of Sustainability. Hiring a full-time staff member dedicated to overseeing all

sustainability programming on campus would be a benefit for all. By having one staff member

automatically engage in these behaviors, others may in turn be influenced to participate as well.

The physical exemplification and commitment to pro-environmental behaviors will set an

example that will encourage and show fellow staff and students the benefits and ease of action.

The current system, with an emphasis on students and a coordinator with another full-time job,

leads to yearly turnover and a lack of consistency and longevity. With a Director of

Sustainability, Rollins would be able to have a centralized office and person to manage metrics

for recycling and energy efficiency, provide audits and advice for other departments, mentor

students, and focus efforts on development of new projects that address long term strategic

planning. Including this position would help to improve the attitudes and subjective norms of

pro-environmental behavior on campus.

Circular Economy. Clever marketing and advertising encourages students that in order to be

accepted in society, they need to purchase things often. Creating a local system for people to

purchase secondhand allows students to connect with their peers on the benefits of making more

environmentally conscious consumer choices. Through a Buy/Sell/Trade Facebook page,

students would be able to influence each other to make sustainable purchases, keep things out of

the landfill, and even make a little extra money. Many large campuses have similar structures

where students can post photos and descriptions of their item and then barter or sell them within

56

the campus community. This would be an easy way to create a sustainable system that thrives on

inclusion and influence of others’ participation.

Administration Commitment. As discussed, much of the work done to improve the sustainability

footprint of the campus is initiated by students and then adopted at a department or office level.

To reinforce Rita Bornstein’s signature in 2003, the administration could plan an event to

celebrate sustainability and show the institutional commitment to the work that is being done.

Visible support from administrators would help to encourage participation by following the

leader, emphasizing the influence of subjective norms on student behavior and expansion of

positive attitudes.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Efficient Faucets. Although it might seem like a minor detail of overall water usage, it would

benefit the college to switch the faucets in academic and residential buildings to include a motion

sensor from their current handles. This would make water conservation behaviors easier to

engage in. The survey showed that one of the most common pro-environmental behaviors for

Rollins students is turning off the tap while brushing our teeth; it makes sense to go a step further

to save water when washing hands and more. The campus is integrating many environmentally

efficient practices in upcoming building construction and including this infrastructure will help

reinforce existing behaviors as well as encourage more through increased access.

57

Shared Airport Shuttle. As noted earlier, a large percentage of Rollins students come from

outside of Florida. Between holidays, family events, academic conferences, and personal travel,

the Rollins community spends a lot of time at the Orlando airport. Even though the campus

offers ZipCars and public transit systems can get you there eventually, Rollins can improve its

carbon footprint through implementing a ride-share shuttle between campus and the airport for

major breaks and framing each semester, similar to the service offered to Winter Park Village on

Friday evenings. This could create an affordable and easily accessible alternative that shows the

simplicity of transportation efficiency and energy conservation behaviors.

Green Purchasing Policy (GPP). Many students indicated that they have trouble being an

environmentally conscious consumer on campus. While Rollins does offer some organic and fair

trade products, the campus would benefit from a centralized GPP to help improve the

convenience of green consumption. A GPP would also allow the campus to re-evaluate the types

of products used to ensure they are as environmentally friendly as possible and fit within our

existing systems, such as recycling. It could help reduce much of the waste produced on campus

and help Rollins move beyond recycling and composting to focus on the impacts of product

procurement.

58

Conclusion

As society progresses economically, politically, and socially, it continues to be important to

study how individuals interact with their environment, as it is connected to all of our actions and

the well-being of our environment. The college experience is often one where individuals grow

into their habits and further their knowledge on a variety of social and environmental issues.

Studying the environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of college students provides insight

into how the institution can play a role in creating more environmentally conscious change-

makers. Rollins College emphasizes responsible leadership, social responsibility, and

environmental stewardship in its mission statement, which further reinforces the need to

understand and positively impact the environment.

I first conducted research on the variety of variables related to environmental behavior, including

individual, contextual, and demographic factors. Utilizing the theory of planned behavior (TPB),

I focused on the roles of four variables in predicting pro-environmental behavior for Rollins

College undergraduate students. I developed a survey instrument that asked students about

environmental attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, intentions, and

frequency of pro-environmental behaviors, which was distributed over a period of two weeks.

There was a total of 512 surveys taken; once incomplete responses were removed, the total

sample was 437 participants. I then reverse coded nine items and developed a separate index for

each variable. To analyze this data, I ran a correlations test between all variables except for

behaviors and found positive and significant correlations between all variables, the highest

between attitudes and intentions. Then I conducted multiple regression between the same

59

variables which showed that attitudes are the strongest predictor of intentions. Finally, another

analysis completed the TPB framework with a positive, moderately strong association between

intentions and behaviors. Men have higher means than women for intentions and attitudes but

show no significant difference in behavior, which is the opposite of the majority of the literature.

There were no significant trends between age groups and any of the variables.

The results of this study fall in line with much of the research done with the theory of planned

behavior and environmental behavior. As with prior literature, intentions are a strong and direct

predictor of pro-environmental behavior (Kaiser and Gutscher 2003; Kaiser et al. 1999a; Kaiser

et al. 2005; Lakhan 2017; Levine and Strube 2012; Morren and Grinstein 2016; Swaim et al.

2014; Taylor and Todd 1995; Tonglet et al. 2004). In turn, attitudes are the most significant

predictor of intentions, although subjective norms and perceived behavioral control also can

predict intentions (Kaiser et al. 1999a; Kaiser et al. 1999b; Levine and Strube 2012). This study

does not align with the majority of findings with demographic factors. However, they do align

with the small number of studies that fail to replicate the results of men having more favorable

pro-environmental attitudes than women, showing either the opposite or no significant gender

differences (Bedrous 2008; Casey and Scott 2006; Levine and Strube 2012; Zelezny et al. 2000).

It is important to note the limitations that come with this study. The sample was restricted to

undergraduate students at Rollins College, a private liberal-arts college; although this population

is an important target for understanding and improving environmental awareness and action, it

only represents a small proportion of the population and application to other groups would

require different samples. In addition, the gender distribution provides an example of why the

60

sample is not representative and why the overall results cannot be extrapolated to generalize the

entire student body. The collection method also presents a potential bias. Distribution of the

survey instrument relied on emails and in person conversations, which can indicate bias towards

students who check their email frequently, are in courses that I have connections to, who dine in

the campus center during lunchtime, or are particularly motivated and passionate about

environmental issues. The survey itself relies on self-reported behavior and attitudes, which may

not be an accurate measure of actual behaviors and beliefs. Social desirability of being an

environmentally-conscious student may have also factored into participants’ responses.

While the study certainly has its limitations, it also gives a good baseline for the level of

environmental understanding and action at Rollins. It would be beneficial to continue to study

the undergraduate population as programs expand over time to see their impact on environmental

attitudes and behaviors long-term. A more ideal study might look at a more comprehensive

cross-section of students or follow the same sample of students throughout their college career at

Rollins. Regardless, the results discovered in this study provide interesting insight into the

beliefs and behaviors of college students. They contribute to the growing body of literature on

pro-environmental behavior and provides information about how higher education institutions

can encourage and influence their students to improve their relationships with the environment.

61

References

Aguilar-Luzón, María del Carmen, José Miguel Ángel García-Martínez, Antonia Calvo-

Salguero, and José María Salinas. 2012. “Comparative Study Between the Theory of

Planned Behavior and the Value–Belief–Norm Model Regarding the Environment, on

Spanish Housewives’ Recycling Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology

42(11):2797–2833.

Azjen, Icek. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” Pp. 11–39 in

Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior.

Barr, Stewart. 2003. “Strategies for Sustainability: Citizens and Responsible Environmental

Behaviour.” Area 35(3):227.

Bedrous, Andrew V. 2008. “Environmental Concern and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The

Relationship Between Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge.” Conference Papers --

American Sociological Association. Retrieved March 26, 2017.

Casey, Paul and Kylie Scott. 2006. “Environmental Concern and Behaviour in an Australian

Sample within an Ecocentric – Anthropocentric Framework.” Australian Journal of

Psychology 58(2):57–67.

Chao, Yu-Long and San-Pui Lam. 2011. “Measuring Responsible Environmental Behavior: Self-

Reported and Other-Reported Measures and Their Differences in Testing a Behavioral

Model.” Environment and Behavior 43(1):53–71.

Conner, Mark and Christopher Armitage. 1998. “Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A

Review and Avenues for Further Research.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology

28(15):1429–64.

62

Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000.

“Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.”

Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425–42.

Ermolaeva, Polina. 2010. “College Students’ Green Culture: Reflecting on the Ideal Types of

Environmental Awareness and Behavior Practices.” Raziskave in Razprave; Nova Gorica

3(3):49–73.

Frick, Jacqueline, Florian G. Kaiser, and Mark Wilson. 2004. “Environmental Knowledge and

Conservation Behavior: Exploring Prevalence and Structure in a Representative Sample.”

Personality and Individual Differences 37(8):1597–1613.

Hunter, Lori M., Alison Hatch, and Aaron Johnson. 2004. “Cross-National Gender Variation in

Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science Quarterly 85(3):677–94.

Intercollegiate Studies Institute. National Civic Literacy Board. 2009. “The Shaping of the

American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on

American Beliefs.” Retrieved April 9, 2018

(http://www.chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/2010%20Civic%20Lit%20Report%2012%2015

%20FINAL_small_2_0.pdf).

Iwata, Osamu. 2004. “Some Psychological Correlates of Environmentally Responsible

Behavior.” Social Behavior and Personality; Palmerston North 32(8):703–13.

Jagers, Sverker C., Johan Martinsson, and Simon Matti. 2016. “The Environmental Psychology

of the Ecological Citizen: Comparing Competing Models of Pro-Environmental

Behavior.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 97(5):1005–22.

63

Kaiser, Florian G. and Heinz Gutscher. 2003. “The Proposition of a General Version of the

Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Ecological Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social

Psychology 33(3):586–603.

Kaiser, Florian G., Gundula Hübner, and Franz X. Bogner. 2005. “Contrasting the Theory of

Planned Behavior With the Value-Belief-Norm Model in Explaining Conservation

Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35(10):2150–70.

Kaiser, Florian G., Michael Ranney, Terry Hartig, and Peter A. Bowler. 1999a. “Ecological

Behavior, Environmental Attitude, and Feelings of Responsibility for the Environment.”

European Psychologist 4(2):59–74.

Kaiser, Florian G., Sybille Wölfing, and Urs Fuhrer. 1999b. “Environmental Attitude and

Ecological Behaviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(1):1–19.

Klineberg, Stephen L., Matthew McKeever, and Bert Rothenbach. 1998. “Demographic

Predictors of Environmental Concern: It Does Make a Difference How It’s Measured.”

Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press) 79(4):734–53.

Lakhan, Calvin. 2017. “The Garbage Gospel: Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain

the Role of Religious Institutions in Affecting pro-Environmental Behavior among Ethnic

Minorities.” The Journal of Environmental Education 0(0):1–16.

Levine, Debra Siegel and Michael J. Strube. 2012. “Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge,

Intentions and Behaviors Among College Students.” Journal of Social Psychology

152(3):308–26.

Markowitz, Ezra M., Lewis R. Goldberg, Michael C. Ashton, and Kibeom Lee. 2012. “Profiling

the ‘Pro-Environmental Individual’: A Personality Perspective.” Journal of Personality

80(1):81–111.

64

Meyer, Andrew. 2016. “Heterogeneity in the Preferences and pro-Environmental Behavior of

College Students: The Effects of Years on Campus, Demographics, and External

Factors.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3451–63.

Mobley, Catherine, Wade M. Vagias, and Sarah L. DeWard. 2010. “Exploring Additional

Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental

Literature and Environmental Attitudes.” Environment and Behavior 42(4):420–47.

Morren, Meike and Amir Grinstein. 2016. “Explaining Environmental Behavior across Borders:

A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 47:91–106.

Rollins College. 2017. “Rollins College Fact Book 2017-2018.” Retrieved April 9, 2018.

(http://www.rollins.edu/ir/facts-figures/fact-book.html).

Rollins College Facilities Management. N.d. “Rollins College Facilities Management

Sustainable Practices.” Retrieved April 9, 2018

(http://www.rollins.edu/sustainability/documents/rollins-college-facilities-management-

sustainable-practices.pdf).

Sheldon, Pavica. 2016. “Facebook Friend Request: Applying the Theory of Reasoned Action to

Student-Teacher Relationships on Facebook.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media 60(2):269–85.

Singleton Jr., Royce A. and Bruce C. Straits. 2009. Approaches to Social Research. 5th ed. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Soyez, Katja. 2012. “How National Cultural Values Affect pro-Environmental Consumer

Behavior.” International Marketing Review; London 29(6):623–46.

65

Sparks, Paul and Richard Shepherd. 1992. “Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior:

Assessing the Role of Identification with ‘Green Consumerism.’” Social Psychology

Quarterly 55(4):388–99.

Swaim, James A., Michael J. Maloni, Stuart A. Napshin, and Amy B. Henley. 2014. “Influences

on Student Intention and Behavior Toward Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of

Business Ethics 124(3):465–84.

Taylor, Shirley and Peter Todd. 1995. “Understanding Household Garbage Reduction Behavior:

A Test of an Integrated Model.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing: JPP&M;

Chicago 14(2):192.

Tonglet, Michele, Paul S. Phillips, and Adam D. Read. 2004. “Using the Theory of Planned

Behaviour to Investigate the Determinants of Recycling Behaviour: A Case Study from

Brixworth, UK.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41(3):191–214.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine and Saffron O’Neill. 2010. “Green Identity, Green Living? The Role of

pro-Environmental Self-Identity in Determining Consistency across Diverse pro-

Environmental Behaviours.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):305–14.

Zelezny, Lynnette C., Poh-Pheng Chua, and Christina Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking

about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.”

Journal of Social Issues 56(3):443–57.

66

Appendix: Survey Instrument

Rollins Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Survey

You are invited to participate in a web-based online survey on the environmental

behaviors and attitudes of college students. This is a research project being conducted by Morgan

Laner as part of the Honors Degree Program thesis at Rollins College. It should take

approximately 5 minutes to complete. This thesis within the field of environmental studies aims

to look at the different environmental behaviors and attitudes that college students have. Your

answers will contribute to an understanding of the influences and actions of the student body at

Rollins College. Although there are no direct benefits from participating in this survey, the

results you provide will be used to develop a list of recommendations to improve the

sustainability footprint of the college that accurately represents where the students stand.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may refuse to take part in the research

or exit the survey at any time without penalty. You are free to decline to answer any particular

question you do not wish to answer for any reason. The questions in this survey focus on your

daily habits and attitudes. Some questions may require thinking about past experiences.

However, risk of discomfort in this study overall is minimal. Remember that you are free at any

point to exit the survey.

Your survey answers will be recorded in a password protected electronic

format. Qualtrics does not collect identifying information such as your name, email address, or

IP address. Therefore, your responses will remain anonymous. No one will be able to identify

you or your answers, and no one will know whether or not you participated in the study. At the

end of this survey is link where you will be directed to another survey to enter name and email

for the drawing for one of two $25 gift cards. Your name will not be attached to your survey

responses.

If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact my

research supervisor, Dr. Amy Armenia via phone at 407.646.2277 or via email at

aarmenia@rollins.edu.

If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or that

your rights as a participant in research have not been honored during the course of this project, or

you have any questions, concerns, or complaints that you wish to address to someone other than

the investigator, you may contact John Houston of the Rollins College Institutional Review

Board at jhouston@rollins.edu.

By clicking the “next” button at the bottom of this page, you have indicated that you read

the above information, are 18 years of age or older, and voluntarily agree to participate in this

study.

67

Please indicate how often you take each action:

Always

Most

of the

time

About

half the

time

Sometimes Never

Turn off lights you’re not using

Drive economically (e.g., braking or

accelerating gently)

Walk, cycle or take public transport for

short journeys (i.e., trips of less than 3

miles)

Share a car journey with someone else

Cut down on the amount you fly

Buy environmentally-friendly products

Eat food which is organic, locally-

grown or in season

Avoid eating meat

Buy products with less packaging

Recycle

Reuse or repair items instead of

throwing them away

Compost your food waste

Save water by taking shorter showers

Turn off the tap while you brush your

teeth

Write to your government officials

about an environmental issue

Take part in a protest about an

environmental issue

68

Please indicate how likely you would be to engage in the following behaviors:

Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very

Unlikely

I would accept cuts in my

standard of living in order

to protect the environment. o o o o

I would participate in

events organized by

environmental groups on

campus like EcoRollins or

the Sustainability Program.

o o o o

I would pass along

environmental information

to my friends and family. o o o o

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly

Agree Agree Unsure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

I think my friends and family

want me to participate in

environmental activities. o o o o o

I think the setting at Rollins

encourages me to care more

about the environment. o o o o o

I find it easy to recycle at

Rollins. o o o o o I find it easy to be

environmentally friendly at

Rollins. o o o o o

I find it easy to use an

alternative mode of

transportation at Rollins. o o o o o

I find it easy to purchase

environmentally friendly

products at Rollins. o o o o o

69

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly

agree Agree Unsure Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Almost everything we do in

modern life harms the

environment. o o o o o

There is no point in doing what

I can for the environment unless

others do the same. o o o o o

I think of myself as an

environmentally-friendly

consumer. o o o o o

I think of myself as someone

who is very concerned with

environmental issues. o o o o o

I would not want my family or

friends to think of me as

someone who is concerned

about environmental issues. o o o o o

Generally, I am concerned

about environmental issues. o o o o o I am interested in issues about

environmental pollution. o o o o o We worry too much about the

future of the environment, and

not enough about prices and

jobs today. o o o o o

70

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly

Agree Agree Unsure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

We are approaching the limit of

the number of people the Earth

can support. o o o o o

Humans have the right to modify

the natural environment to suit

their needs. o o o o o

When humans interfere with

nature it often produces

disastrous consequences. o o o o o

Human ingenuity will insure that

we do not make the Earth

unlivable. o o o o o

Humans are seriously abusing

the environment. o o o o o The Earth has plenty of natural

resources if we just learn how to

develop them. o o o o o

Plants and animals have as much

right as humans to exist. o o o o o The balance of nature is strong

enough to cope with the impacts

of modern industrial nations. o o o o o

Despite our special abilities,

humans are still subject to the

laws of nature. o o o o o

The so-called “ecological crisis”

facing humankind has been

greatly exaggerated. o o o o o

The Earth is like a spaceship

with very limited room and

resources. o o o o o

71

Humans were meant to rule over

the rest of nature. o o o o o The balance of nature is very

delicate and easily upset. o o o o o Humans will eventually learn

enough about how nature works

to be able to control it. o o o o o

If things continue on their

present course, we will soon

experience a major ecological

catastrophe. o o o o o

Please select your gender identification

o Male

o Female

o Transgender

o Other

Please select your age

o 18-19

o 20-21

o 22-23

o 24 and older